Tell Me :
Talk
World wide, yeah, yer probably right.
Every release charts, some chart at the bottom. So yeah, it will chart as well.
Sources please…..>
<
My "Magic 8 Ball"
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-08-16 20:14 by Woz.
nice word salad there guy's, too bad it made no sense.
beforetheymakemeruns non-sequitur naming Pauls number 1's in the 80's and bizarre claim the Stones folded in 69 or 74 followed by hairballs laundry list of Mick side projects and not liking guests at the live shows doesn't really have anything to do with what i said.
BTMMR said -Paul put out records for the fans and didn't care about sales whereas the Stones and Jagger in particular only worried about sales.
i called bullshit on it and your responses were at best weak and at worst completely lost. -no offense.
No offense taken as that sort of reply was expected from you as it seems to be your typical modus operandi.
Rather than attacking the messenger, maybe you should debate the message itself.
You said "anyone who is desperate enough for a hit song that he teams up with Kanye West to get on the charts is still chasing the dream"...followed by "Mick is dealing with a great legacy that is the Rolling Stones"
hence my response listing all of Micks questionable side projects outside (and with) the Stones. I'd say it's pretty clear Mick has been desperate throughout the years for a hit song by teaming up with the above mentioned collaborators, so to say he's 'dealing with a great legacy that that is the Rolling Stones' as if it's his only role in life is totally untrue. IMO he's tarnished the Stones legacy with most if not all of his side projects.
And I didn't even mention his foray into movies/acting in hopes of some sort of success which can be summed up in one word: Freejack.
As for beforetheymakemeruns saying "the Stones' career folding in 1969 or 1974..." - I have no idea what he's talking about, nor do I agree with his positive opinions on Paul's collaborative hits of the past.
Just pointing out that Mick has been known to dabble with the same colaborrative strategy - seemingly desperate for a hit and/or expanding his audience.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Gotcha.
As for the "do you really think when someone says"Mick Jagger" people think "oh,yeah,the primitive cool guy"?'... maybe not everybody, but I do.
I bought the cassette when it was released and the thought of it still hurts. Bad move on Micks part IMO, and indeed tarnished my image of him as front man for the Rolling Stones (as did most/all of his solo work and collaborations) which in turn hurt the Stones' image. As for collaborating with outsiders (or his solo work), I don't think it's ever been just a 'hobby' of his. IMO it's always been about a quest to prove he can be bigger and/or better than the sum of the parts of the Stones as a band, and his misguided adventures always seem to miss the mark. As for the Charlie jazz comment - he's 'only' the drummer, and jazz is somewhat of a small niche market these days anyways. In other words, he's not hoping for superstardom outside of the band by collaborating with the latest hottest pop sensations. He does what he does while the Stones are inactive, and with Mick and Keith as co-leaders, it's not part of his job description to worry about the legacy.
Back to Paul: his silly love song solo stuff doesn't really take away from the Beatles legacy as he was already known at times to lean toward a more sappy pop oriented sound even while in the band (see Michelle, Fool on the hill, Maxwell Silver Hammer, et. al). Additionally, his best known solo material came after the Beatles had already called it quits. Mick on the other hand - as frontman of the still active Rolling Stones - has taken these oddball detours when all of his energy might have been better spent 'dealing with a great legacy that is the Rolling Stones'. Instead he's gifted us with Primitive Cool, Superheavy, Alfie, etc., etc., etc.
Perhaps that's a separate point from the point you were initially making, but thought I'd clarify it all just for the sake of it.
Meanwhile, still wondering about a new Stones record.....
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-08-17 03:49 by Hairball.
that's what she said.
Why don't you read his entries to find out….
but, but...the patio ain't dry yet!
Freejack is one of the best movies of the last century - MIck was robbed by the Academy.
____________________________________________
Lol Ikr .. He was also robbed with his appearance/ role in Lucky in Love.
I mean .. ya got A Clockwork Orange .. 2001 ... Citizen Kane ...
and others such as Freejack & Lucky in Love .. ... << all those .. right? .. .. ...
Ian
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2016-08-18 21:29 by IanBillen.
Mick is going to be a daaaaaad one more time.
That is why. All Stones plans, where no contracts are done, will be put on hold or forgotten!!!
I guess Keith is going to be upset..... one more time.
Kind of sucks that after all this speculation nothing is happening anytime soon regarding new Stones material.
On the positive side, this might bode well for another Keith solo album.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: New Rolling Stones studio album due out in 2016
Posted by:
Maindefender
()
Date: August 16, 2016 16:13
Tricky situation, glad we are here to help them….if only they would listen….. Maybe they are, hey Mick enlist either Dan Auerbach or Danger Mouse as producers on the new album. Thanks
. Maybe they are, hey Mick enlist either Dan Auerbach or Danger Mouse as producers on the new album. Thanks Re: New Rolling Stones studio album due out in 2016
Posted by:
mailexile67
()
Date: August 16, 2016 17:10
What a silly talking..."They're afraid that new stuff isn't good enough...They're nervous...They're afraid that new album doesn't peak top five...Baaaaah!
It's only a new rock'n'roll album...It should be obvious that it will coming out!They're musicians!Musicians do concerts and albums!
Then...If Keith without no pubblicity and no Tour to support it has sold almost 400K, I think that the Stones can sell at least 800K or 1 million in the world touring and media appearances with a big UMG pubblicity and peak Top 3 all over the world charts for sure with many number one FOR SURE!!!And it should be ENOUGH!
It's only a new rock'n'roll album...It should be obvious that it will coming out!They're musicians!Musicians do concerts and albums!
Then...If Keith without no pubblicity and no Tour to support it has sold almost 400K, I think that the Stones can sell at least 800K or 1 million in the world touring and media appearances with a big UMG pubblicity and peak Top 3 all over the world charts for sure with many number one FOR SURE!!!And it should be ENOUGH!
Re: New Rolling Stones studio album due out in 2016
Posted by:
mailexile67
()
Date: August 16, 2016 17:11
Rolling Stones MUST make another Studio Album, for sure!
Re: New Rolling Stones studio album due out in 2016
Posted by:
Woz
()
Date: August 16, 2016 18:24
Both albums will sell 1,000,000 plus copies and the new original Stones disc will chart. Just watch.....
Re: New Rolling Stones studio album due out in 2016
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: August 16, 2016 18:26
Quote
Woz
Both albums will sell 1,000,000 plus copies and the new original Stones disc will chart. Just watch.....
World wide, yeah, yer probably right.
Every release charts, some chart at the bottom. So yeah, it will chart as well.
Re: New Rolling Stones studio album due out in 2016
Posted by:
Maindefender
()
Date: August 16, 2016 18:40
Quote
Woz
Both albums will sell 1,000,000 plus copies and the new original Stones disc will chart. Just watch.....
Sources please…..>
<Re: New Rolling Stones studio album due out in 2016
Posted by:
KRiffhard
()
Date: August 16, 2016 19:02
Quote
mailexile67
What a silly talking..."They're afraid that new stuff isn't good enough...They're nervous...They're afraid that new album doesn't peak top five...Baaaaah!
It's only a new rock'n'roll album...It should be obvious that it will coming out!They're musicians!Musicians do concerts and albums!
Then...If Keith without no pubblicity and no Tour to support it has sold almost 400K, I think that the Stones can sell at least 800K or 1 million in the world touring and media appearances with a big UMG pubblicity and peak Top 3 all over the world charts for sure with many number one FOR SURE!!!And it should be ENOUGH!
Re: New Rolling Stones studio album due out in 2016
Posted by:
Woz
()
Date: August 16, 2016 20:14
Quote
MaindefenderQuote
Woz
Both albums will sell 1,000,000 plus copies and the new original Stones disc will chart. Just watch.....
Sources please…..>
My "Magic 8 Ball"
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-08-16 20:14 by Woz.
Re: New Rolling Stones studio album due out in 2016
Posted by:
lem motlow
()
Date: August 16, 2016 22:44
Quote
HairballQuote
BeforeTheyMakeMeRunQuote
lem motlowQuote
BeforeTheyMakeMeRun
All of this talk on whether they should or shouldn't and what the point of a release is is really reminding me of the new Paul McCartney Rolling Stone interview. He said he's releasing a new album not because he needs to, but because he can. He credits that attitude towards having written some songs he likes and hopes everyone else will, which is making me wonder- does Mick think the Stones have passed their expiration but refuses to throw out the can, so to speak? That's one of the main differences between Mick and Paul as frontmen, imo. Paul thinks of how the fans, and I'm sure to an extent, the general public (i.e. potential new fans), will react to a new album or song, whereas Mick seems to only look at potential record sales as opposed to keeping their existing fan-base well-fed with new material (not re-recorded parts dubbed over a thirty-five year old vocal track), so to speak.
bullsht,Paul is trying to throw everything he can against the wall and hope something sticks.anyone who is desperate enough for a hit song that he teams up with Kanye West to get on the charts is still chasing the dream.
Paul is such a phony"i'm just writing songs and hope the fans will like it"-no Paulie,you're trying to sell as many records as you can,just like everyone else.nice try with the excuse for all those bombs though.
Mick is dealing with a great legacy that is the Rolling Stones,Maccas little pop group folded 46 years ago.
While I will agree that some of Macca's previous collaborations have been pretty questionable, I would like to point out that he may be trying formulas that have worked well for him in the past, like Stevie Wonder on 'Ebony & Ivory' (surprisingly a #1 hit) and Michael Jackson on 'Say Say Say' (a #1 hit) and 'The Girl is Mine' (#1 in select genre charts). Can you blame Paul?
And I'm also pretty sure the same about the Stones' career folding in 1969 or 1974...
And then there's Mick's collaborations with Michael Jackson, Will.I.Am (sp? lol), Superheavy, Lenny Kravitz, Alfie/Dave Stewart, and other questionable projects I can't think of at the moment. So while Mick is indeed 'dealing with a great legacy that is the Rolling Stones' as lem motlow states, he's also been 'chasing the dream' with oddball detours and throwing all kinds of crap at the wall. And that's not to mention the live collaboration with Taylor Swift, and all the other weirdos who were brought out as guests for Stones shows during the last few tours (I think it mainly during 50 and Counting)...
nice word salad there guy's, too bad it made no sense.
beforetheymakemeruns non-sequitur naming Pauls number 1's in the 80's and bizarre claim the Stones folded in 69 or 74 followed by hairballs laundry list of Mick side projects and not liking guests at the live shows doesn't really have anything to do with what i said.
BTMMR said -Paul put out records for the fans and didn't care about sales whereas the Stones and Jagger in particular only worried about sales.
i called bullshit on it and your responses were at best weak and at worst completely lost. -no offense.
Re: New Rolling Stones studio album due out in 2016
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: August 17, 2016 00:56
Quote
lem motlowQuote
HairballQuote
BeforeTheyMakeMeRunQuote
lem motlowQuote
BeforeTheyMakeMeRun
All of this talk on whether they should or shouldn't and what the point of a release is is really reminding me of the new Paul McCartney Rolling Stone interview. He said he's releasing a new album not because he needs to, but because he can. He credits that attitude towards having written some songs he likes and hopes everyone else will, which is making me wonder- does Mick think the Stones have passed their expiration but refuses to throw out the can, so to speak? That's one of the main differences between Mick and Paul as frontmen, imo. Paul thinks of how the fans, and I'm sure to an extent, the general public (i.e. potential new fans), will react to a new album or song, whereas Mick seems to only look at potential record sales as opposed to keeping their existing fan-base well-fed with new material (not re-recorded parts dubbed over a thirty-five year old vocal track), so to speak.
bullsht,Paul is trying to throw everything he can against the wall and hope something sticks.anyone who is desperate enough for a hit song that he teams up with Kanye West to get on the charts is still chasing the dream.
Paul is such a phony"i'm just writing songs and hope the fans will like it"-no Paulie,you're trying to sell as many records as you can,just like everyone else.nice try with the excuse for all those bombs though.
Mick is dealing with a great legacy that is the Rolling Stones,Maccas little pop group folded 46 years ago.
While I will agree that some of Macca's previous collaborations have been pretty questionable, I would like to point out that he may be trying formulas that have worked well for him in the past, like Stevie Wonder on 'Ebony & Ivory' (surprisingly a #1 hit) and Michael Jackson on 'Say Say Say' (a #1 hit) and 'The Girl is Mine' (#1 in select genre charts). Can you blame Paul?
And I'm also pretty sure the same about the Stones' career folding in 1969 or 1974...
And then there's Mick's collaborations with Michael Jackson, Will.I.Am (sp? lol), Superheavy, Lenny Kravitz, Alfie/Dave Stewart, and other questionable projects I can't think of at the moment. So while Mick is indeed 'dealing with a great legacy that is the Rolling Stones' as lem motlow states, he's also been 'chasing the dream' with oddball detours and throwing all kinds of crap at the wall. And that's not to mention the live collaboration with Taylor Swift, and all the other weirdos who were brought out as guests for Stones shows during the last few tours (I think it mainly during 50 and Counting)...
nice word salad there guy's, too bad it made no sense.
beforetheymakemeruns non-sequitur naming Pauls number 1's in the 80's and bizarre claim the Stones folded in 69 or 74 followed by hairballs laundry list of Mick side projects and not liking guests at the live shows doesn't really have anything to do with what i said.
BTMMR said -Paul put out records for the fans and didn't care about sales whereas the Stones and Jagger in particular only worried about sales.
i called bullshit on it and your responses were at best weak and at worst completely lost. -no offense.
No offense taken as that sort of reply was expected from you as it seems to be your typical modus operandi.
Rather than attacking the messenger, maybe you should debate the message itself.
You said "anyone who is desperate enough for a hit song that he teams up with Kanye West to get on the charts is still chasing the dream"...followed by "Mick is dealing with a great legacy that is the Rolling Stones"
hence my response listing all of Micks questionable side projects outside (and with) the Stones. I'd say it's pretty clear Mick has been desperate throughout the years for a hit song by teaming up with the above mentioned collaborators, so to say he's 'dealing with a great legacy that that is the Rolling Stones' as if it's his only role in life is totally untrue. IMO he's tarnished the Stones legacy with most if not all of his side projects.
And I didn't even mention his foray into movies/acting in hopes of some sort of success which can be summed up in one word: Freejack.
As for beforetheymakemeruns saying "the Stones' career folding in 1969 or 1974..." - I have no idea what he's talking about, nor do I agree with his positive opinions on Paul's collaborative hits of the past.
Just pointing out that Mick has been known to dabble with the same colaborrative strategy - seemingly desperate for a hit and/or expanding his audience.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Re: New Rolling Stones studio album due out in 2016
Posted by:
lem motlow
()
Date: August 17, 2016 01:56
ok let me try again-i never said Mick, the Stones or anyone else wasn't trying to make hit records.
everyone does,i don't care if it's Katy Perry or Metallica.it's show business,and it's a business.
my point was Paul does this like anyone else,his post was basically that Paul just puts stuff out willy nilly and it's all about music and the sales don't matter where Mick and the Stones are all about the bottom line.and that's just not true-everybody wants hits.
his response agreed with me and i'm not sure he even knew it.
nobody gives a damn if Jagger sells 10 records or not, maybe it was a story in the 80's but it's pretty clear anything he does outside the band at this point is a hobby.
it doesn't "tarnish the band" because it doesn't say "The Rolling Stones" on it.that's like saying charlies jazz records not selling a million copies hurts the bands reputation.it's the same thing,nobody cares.do you really think when someone says"Mick Jagger" people think "oh,yeah,the primitive cool guy"?
which brings me to the "great legacy of the Rolling Stones comment"-there IS pressure there because if the band has a record that bombs in a big way that's a problem,it's a news story and it brings out the wolves and with it the narrative of the old washed up Stones.
the guests on tour have nothing to do with anything-they don't sell tickets because they're not announced in advance and a group that hasn't put out a record in 11 years isn't trying to use them for that.
it's all just part of the show in the modern age-with Buddy Guy,Eric Clapton ,Tom Waits and John lee Hooker balancing out any worries about the bands credibility against having pop stars onstage,i'm sure their reputation will somehow survive.
everyone does,i don't care if it's Katy Perry or Metallica.it's show business,and it's a business.
my point was Paul does this like anyone else,his post was basically that Paul just puts stuff out willy nilly and it's all about music and the sales don't matter where Mick and the Stones are all about the bottom line.and that's just not true-everybody wants hits.
his response agreed with me and i'm not sure he even knew it.
nobody gives a damn if Jagger sells 10 records or not, maybe it was a story in the 80's but it's pretty clear anything he does outside the band at this point is a hobby.
it doesn't "tarnish the band" because it doesn't say "The Rolling Stones" on it.that's like saying charlies jazz records not selling a million copies hurts the bands reputation.it's the same thing,nobody cares.do you really think when someone says"Mick Jagger" people think "oh,yeah,the primitive cool guy"?
which brings me to the "great legacy of the Rolling Stones comment"-there IS pressure there because if the band has a record that bombs in a big way that's a problem,it's a news story and it brings out the wolves and with it the narrative of the old washed up Stones.
the guests on tour have nothing to do with anything-they don't sell tickets because they're not announced in advance and a group that hasn't put out a record in 11 years isn't trying to use them for that.
it's all just part of the show in the modern age-with Buddy Guy,Eric Clapton ,Tom Waits and John lee Hooker balancing out any worries about the bands credibility against having pop stars onstage,i'm sure their reputation will somehow survive.
Re: New Rolling Stones studio album due out in 2016
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: August 17, 2016 03:46
Quote
lem motlow
ok let me try again-i never said Mick, the Stones or anyone else wasn't trying to make hit records.
everyone does,i don't care if it's Katy Perry or Metallica.it's show business,and it's a business.
my point was Paul does this like anyone else,his post was basically that Paul just puts stuff out willy nilly and it's all about music and the sales don't matter where Mick and the Stones are all about the bottom line.and that's just not true-everybody wants hits.
his response agreed with me and i'm not sure he even knew it.
nobody gives a damn if Jagger sells 10 records or not, maybe it was a story in the 80's but it's pretty clear anything he does outside the band at this point is a hobby.
it doesn't "tarnish the band" because it doesn't say "The Rolling Stones" on it.that's like saying charlies jazz records not selling a million copies hurts the bands reputation.it's the same thing,nobody cares.do you really think when someone says"Mick Jagger" people think "oh,yeah,the primitive cool guy"?
which brings me to the "great legacy of the Rolling Stones comment"-there IS pressure there because if the band has a record that bombs in a big way that's a problem,it's a news story and it brings out the wolves and with it the narrative of the old washed up Stones.
the guests on tour have nothing to do with anything-they don't sell tickets because they're not announced in advance and a group that hasn't put out a record in 11 years isn't trying to use them for that.
it's all just part of the show in the modern age-with Buddy Guy,Eric Clapton ,Tom Waits and John lee Hooker balancing out any worries about the bands credibility against having pop stars onstage,i'm sure their reputation will somehow survive.
Gotcha.
As for the "do you really think when someone says"Mick Jagger" people think "oh,yeah,the primitive cool guy"?'... maybe not everybody, but I do.
I bought the cassette when it was released and the thought of it still hurts. Bad move on Micks part IMO, and indeed tarnished my image of him as front man for the Rolling Stones (as did most/all of his solo work and collaborations) which in turn hurt the Stones' image. As for collaborating with outsiders (or his solo work), I don't think it's ever been just a 'hobby' of his. IMO it's always been about a quest to prove he can be bigger and/or better than the sum of the parts of the Stones as a band, and his misguided adventures always seem to miss the mark. As for the Charlie jazz comment - he's 'only' the drummer, and jazz is somewhat of a small niche market these days anyways. In other words, he's not hoping for superstardom outside of the band by collaborating with the latest hottest pop sensations. He does what he does while the Stones are inactive, and with Mick and Keith as co-leaders, it's not part of his job description to worry about the legacy.
Back to Paul: his silly love song solo stuff doesn't really take away from the Beatles legacy as he was already known at times to lean toward a more sappy pop oriented sound even while in the band (see Michelle, Fool on the hill, Maxwell Silver Hammer, et. al). Additionally, his best known solo material came after the Beatles had already called it quits. Mick on the other hand - as frontman of the still active Rolling Stones - has taken these oddball detours when all of his energy might have been better spent 'dealing with a great legacy that is the Rolling Stones'. Instead he's gifted us with Primitive Cool, Superheavy, Alfie, etc., etc., etc.
Perhaps that's a separate point from the point you were initially making, but thought I'd clarify it all just for the sake of it.
Meanwhile, still wondering about a new Stones record.....
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-08-17 03:49 by Hairball.
Re: New Rolling Stones studio album due out in 2016
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: August 17, 2016 05:52
Quote
WozQuote
MaindefenderQuote
Woz
Both albums will sell 1,000,000 plus copies and the new original Stones disc will chart. Just watch.....
Sources please…..>
My "Magic 8 Ball"
that's what she said.
Re: New Rolling Stones studio album due out in 2016
Posted by:
novica
()
Date: August 17, 2016 11:42
don't know if posted before,
but i just found this on :
ERIC CLAPTON HAS GUEST SPOT ON NEW ROLLING STONES ALBUM
this sound promising ..."The blues-themed disc was recorded in London..."
can't wait
but i just found this on :
ERIC CLAPTON HAS GUEST SPOT ON NEW ROLLING STONES ALBUM
this sound promising ..."The blues-themed disc was recorded in London..."
can't wait
Re: New Rolling Stones studio album due out in 2016
Posted by:
mailexile67
()
Date: August 17, 2016 11:46
The double CD would be always the best option...
Re: New Rolling Stones studio album due out in 2016
Posted by:
Monkeytonkman
()
Date: August 17, 2016 18:13
noticed that BV has made the 'New Rolling Stones albums due out 2016/2017' thread go all sticky.
Is this a clue that something could be coming round the bend sometime soon? just spitballing but.....
\m/
Is this a clue that something could be coming round the bend sometime soon? just spitballing but.....
\m/
Re: New Rolling Stones studio album due out in 2016
Posted by:
Maindefender
()
Date: August 17, 2016 19:31
Quote
Monkeytonkman
noticed that BV has made the 'New Rolling Stones albums due out 2016/2017' thread go all sticky.
Is this a clue that something could be coming round the bend sometime soon? just spitballing but.....
\m/
Why don't you read his entries to find out….
Re: New Rolling Stones studio album due out in 2016
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: August 18, 2016 03:26
Part of me thinks... that with having Clapton on a song - or more, whatever it is or could be - gives a nod to the end; Clapton is about to hang it up; the Stones can't go for much longer.
The blues is what started it all.
12 years later, sure, why not do another album. "It's about time". Well fine then. When it comes out it comes out. Touring "behind" it doesn't mean anything to the Stones anymore,as the last LP tour proved, back in 2006-07. It's plausible to think that in the midst of that tour something shifted - the new stuff doesn't matter anymore, play the hits.
They took a break.
They came back 5 plus years later and... played what amounts to a 1964-1981 catalogue covering show.
This isn't about making the pool, this is about hanging out around the pool and enjoying the view and a drink or two.
The blues is what started it all.
12 years later, sure, why not do another album. "It's about time". Well fine then. When it comes out it comes out. Touring "behind" it doesn't mean anything to the Stones anymore,as the last LP tour proved, back in 2006-07. It's plausible to think that in the midst of that tour something shifted - the new stuff doesn't matter anymore, play the hits.
They took a break.
They came back 5 plus years later and... played what amounts to a 1964-1981 catalogue covering show.
This isn't about making the pool, this is about hanging out around the pool and enjoying the view and a drink or two.
Re: New Rolling Stones studio album due out in 2016
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: August 18, 2016 04:49
Quote
GasLightStreet
Part of me thinks... that with having Clapton on a song - or more, whatever it is or could be - gives a nod to the end; Clapton is about to hang it up; the Stones can't go for much longer.
The blues is what started it all.
12 years later, sure, why not do another album. "It's about time". Well fine then. When it comes out it comes out. Touring "behind" it doesn't mean anything to the Stones anymore,as the last LP tour proved, back in 2006-07. It's plausible to think that in the midst of that tour something shifted - the new stuff doesn't matter anymore, play the hits.
They took a break.
They came back 5 plus years later and... played what amounts to a 1964-1981 catalogue covering show.
This isn't about making the pool, this is about hanging out around the pool and enjoying the view and a drink or two.
but, but...the patio ain't dry yet!
Re: New Rolling Stones studio album due out in 2016
Posted by:
mailexile67
()
Date: August 18, 2016 18:28
BV, in your opinion do you think that a new studio album of new stuff will come out next year?!?Thanks in advance for your reply!
Re: New Rolling Stones studio album due out in 2016
Posted by:
Swayed1967
()
Date: August 18, 2016 18:34
Quote
Hairball
IMO he's tarnished the Stones legacy with most if not all of his side projects.
And I didn't even mention his foray into movies/acting in hopes of some sort of success which can be summed up in one word: Freejack.
Freejack is one of the best movies of the last century - MIck was robbed by the Academy.
Re: New Rolling Stones studio album due out in 2016
Posted by:
maumau
()
Date: August 18, 2016 18:40
Speaking of "marketing" "plans" "and" "strategy" "to" "hit" "the" "market"
here's Bon Iver playing entirely his new album more than a month before the planned release, not givin a sh about ending on youtube minutes later. more, with the mobile app of the venue pushing the titles of the songs played
i think the message is clear to all (except the Universal/Stones camp apparently)
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-08-18 18:41 by maumau.
here's Bon Iver playing entirely his new album more than a month before the planned release, not givin a sh about ending on youtube minutes later. more, with the mobile app of the venue pushing the titles of the songs played
i think the message is clear to all (except the Universal/Stones camp apparently)
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-08-18 18:41 by maumau.
Re: New Rolling Stones studio album due out in 2016
Posted by:
IanBillen
()
Date: August 18, 2016 21:28
Quote
Swayed1967Quote
Hairball
IMO he's tarnished the Stones legacy with most if not all of his side projects.
And I didn't even mention his foray into movies/acting in hopes of some sort of success which can be summed up in one word: Freejack.
Freejack is one of the best movies of the last century - MIck was robbed by the Academy.
____________________________________________
Lol Ikr .. He was also robbed with his appearance/ role in Lucky in Love.
I mean .. ya got A Clockwork Orange .. 2001 ... Citizen Kane ...
and others such as Freejack & Lucky in Love .. ... << all those .. right? .. .. ...
Ian
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2016-08-18 21:29 by IanBillen.
Re: New Rolling Stones studio album due out in 2016
Posted by:
mailexile67
()
Date: August 18, 2016 23:36
BV, Why has been deleted the "Sticky" thread of new albums 2016/2017?!?
Re: New Rolling Stones studio album due out in 2016
Posted by:
mtaylor
()
Date: August 18, 2016 23:41
Quote
mailexile67
BV, Why has been deleted the "Sticky" thread of new albums 2016/2017?!?
Mick is going to be a daaaaaad one more time.
That is why. All Stones plans, where no contracts are done, will be put on hold or forgotten!!!
I guess Keith is going to be upset..... one more time.
Re: New Rolling Stones studio album due out in 2016
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: August 18, 2016 23:46
128 pages of NOTHING. Amazing.
Re: New Rolling Stones studio album due out in 2016
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: August 19, 2016 00:26
Quote
mtaylorQuote
mailexile67
BV, Why has been deleted the "Sticky" thread of new albums 2016/2017?!?
Mick is going to be a daaaaaad one more time.
That is why. All Stones plans, where no contracts are done, will be put on hold or forgotten!!!
I guess Keith is going to be upset..... one more time.
Kind of sucks that after all this speculation nothing is happening anytime soon regarding new Stones material.
On the positive side, this might bode well for another Keith solo album.
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Re: New Rolling Stones studio album due out in 2016
Posted by:
jlowe
()
Date: August 19, 2016 01:07
Well, if there is to be no release it may mean that NONE of the six Acts appearing at the October concerts will have new material out.
Re: New Rolling Stones studio album due out in 2016
Posted by:
Hairball
()
Date: August 19, 2016 03:22
Dylans latest - Fallen Angels - was just released in May of this year.
Neil Young's latest - Monsanto Years - was released a little over a year ago on June, 2015...somewhat new by todays standards.
On the other hand, Roger Waters' 'latest' proper studio album - Amused to Death - was released back in 1992!!!!
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Neil Young's latest - Monsanto Years - was released a little over a year ago on June, 2015...somewhat new by todays standards.
On the other hand, Roger Waters' 'latest' proper studio album - Amused to Death - was released back in 1992!!!!
_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......
Re: New Rolling Stones studio album due out in 2016
Posted by:
desertblues68
()
Date: August 19, 2016 12:01
Ronnie has got two young daughters and Mick will have a newborn baby early next year. They should enjoy time with their family, they have worked very hard and deserve to enjoy personal time off. We, as fans cannot expect them to fullfill our wishes for new albums, tours etc. They have a life.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-08-19 19:09 by desertblues68.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-08-19 19:09 by desertblues68.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Guests:
1676
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10